USPTO Patents Application 09831213

L ^|| 6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNIC^^

_ _ B 010

nfi/i?/2rt03 14:14 FAX 216 241.

REMARKS.

The applicants request reconsideration and allowance

of claims 1-12,

Tala phoiia if> t--arview
The applicants express their appreciation to
Examiner Manoharan for the kind courtesy of responding to the
applicants' OUna 5, 2003 revest for a Telephone *
offering a Telephone Interview on the earliest date
Examiner would conduct a telephone interview. July 2, 2003 at
10:30 am. Although the applicants gratefully accept the
oner's offer, it is Relieved that an earlier interview could
have advanced the prosecution of the present application
Because the application is currently under Final section the
applicants cannot defer the present submission for nearly four
weeks, but do reserve the option of filing a Supplemental
Response after the Telephone Interview. If the Examiner reviews

, * af , P r F^nal prior to July 2, 2003 and

the enclosed Amendment After i^nai prxui.

would like to discuss this response, a possible Examiner's
Mendnent to place all claims in condition for allowance, or
other aspects of this matter while it is still fresh m the
Examiner's mind, the applicants are amenable to an earlier
Telephone Interview. Of course, if the Examiner decides that
the application is now in condition for allowance for the
reasons set forth below, the Telephone Interview will be moot-

^ pr«ai rt snotiii Pn

The present Amendment After Final addresses only
issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first or second paragraph
Accordingly, the present amendment raises no new grounds of
rejection, requires no further consideration of the merits and
places the application in better condition for appeal by
simplifying the issues. The applicants are more than happy to
discuss clarifying amendments at the interview to emphasis t..e
argents presented below. However, because propose
clarifying amendments to the claims in an Amendment After Fmal

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12/03 2:12:53 PHI [Eastern Daylight Time]

06/12/2003

FAI 216 24jJWS6______£^ SIT^ PF MXW

- B -

on rrv such proposed amendments are not
would jeopardize its entry, such P p

appropriate at the present time.

Status_of the. Claims
CUl* 6 and 8 stand r^ectad «„d«r 35 O...C. I 112,

Iiist paragraph. stand undar 35

35 U.s-C. § 103 a, being unpatentable
(US 4,981,555) or Ryham (US 5,246,541)-

in light of the Examiner's comments in the final

• ."on the applicants would li*. to discuss how the Examiner
reaction, the appn r reject3

4. 3nD lvircj Hohmann and Ryham. The

1 PP 3 5 _ 7 9 and 10, on either Hohmann or Ryham taken
claims 3, o ' * ^ ; B ~,nt citing either

alnne Yet , th s Examiner states that she is not citing
alone. Yet ^ disso lved gases fro. the

of these reference, as sho g lntend ing to apply

liquid. It almost sounds as if she tQ teach

Hownn and Ryham as teaming references, poa^hiy
modifications to El-Allawy or Blanghett,?

„ „ . n « li r — ejection

-^^^-^T^derstand the Examiner s

«■>, , the present application does not disclose or
assertions that the presen app ' ^ water vap0 r

pr0 vide support for maintaining ^J^J^ tQ discussing

separate from the separated gase ™* Interview to

this rejection in greater detail at the Teleph

4. ^ v,pt reasoning more completely,
unaerstand her reasoning focuge3 on a falling fil*

The present application focuses

Fallinc film evaporators receive water at their
evaporator. Falling fUn P ^.^ ^

upper end and generate the product p ^
discharged at their 0«— — 1, 1

f 9 j6 541,, Hohmann (US 4,9H1,3^>,
See RYhait (OS 5,246,54.), chemical Engineering,

Mccabe S Smith (Unit Operations of =
page 433), all of record. The present application

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12/03 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

^ 0,1 W&« FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINKICH^ 2)012

06/1 2/2003 14:14 FAX 216 241 TJB6

9 -

separated gases from the upp«r «nd of the assembly at: outlets 5
(P age 4, line 5). That is, the product water vapor is
d'a^a-ged from one end of the device and the separated gases
are^discharged fro. the opposite end. The present application
repeatedly emphasizes that an intent or P-pose of the device
is to produce water vapor from which atmospheric gases have been
removed. Note lines 1-4 of the abstract, page 1, !»»■ 8-11,

page 2, lines 22-25, etc.

Claim 6 has bean amended to parallel the language of
e 2 line3 22-25 more closely. The applicants are also
amenable to paralleling the language of page 3, line 4, of the
p^ent application more closely, if the Examiner prefers

The applicants look forward to the Telephone
interview at which the Examiner's rejection can be diseased in
greater detail and the applicants can come to understand the
sasis or the rejection and how to address it in a Supplemental

Response .

Pireaont A pplication

in the present application, feed water which contains
dissolved gases, -inly atmospheric gases, is fad into the
device to produce a clean water vapor product that is free o.
dissolved gases (Abstract, lines 1-4, page 1, lines 8-16; etc.)
This is to be distinguished from El-Allawy and Ryham, which have
a feed liquid and produce a primary product liquid.

Very briefly summarized, feed water is sprayed by a
nozzle 3 onto the upper surfaces of a falling film evaporator.
This spraying operation, itself, releases the dissolved gases
from the feed water (page 3, line 2). The separated gases are
discharged at outlets 5 (page 4, line 5) . In this manner, the
gases are removed with the feed water concurrently with
distributing the feed water over the tube bundle of the falling
wa «r evaporator (page 2, lines 20-25, . Because the liquid
phase distributed as droplets reach the evaporator channels i
a very short time, none of the separated gases are «di»olved
into the feed water before the evaporation starts (page 3,
ii.es 3-5) . The water sprayed into the vertical evaporator

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6V12/03 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

L^6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNIC^^

_ _ 12013

n C / 1 o/9nn^ 1d:14 FAX 216 241

- 10 -

channels of the falling water film evaporator are vaporized,
discharging water vapor or steam from the lower end of the
falling tube evaporator (page 1, lines 21-26) . In this manner,
the separated gases are discharged through outlets 5 at the top
of the evaporator system separately from the water vapor or
steam which is discharged from the bottom of the evaporator.

Tfr g. References of Record
El-Allawy uses a different separation mechanism to
remove salts, hydrocarbons, and iron ions from water,
i e controlled partial expansion. Volatile hydrocarbons are
separated from the water at a degasser 9. The degassed water
is sprayed 15 over an electrically heated (column 3, line 23)
neat exchanger 16 which boils off both hydrocarbons and water
vapor. Because the degasser 9 removed the volatile gases, there
should be no volatile gases to separate at the spray nozzles 15.
El-AHawy does not assert any separating takes place at the
nozzles or even in the evaporator 14. Rather, it takes place
downstream. Specifically, the water and hydrocarbon vapors are
compressed 19 and fed through the heat exchanger 16 and a
separator 22 to effect a controlled partial expansion (column 3,
lines 65-68). The non-compressible vapors, i.e., the
hydrocarbon vapors, do not condense, but the condensible vapors,
i e , water vapor, does (column 3, lines 49-56). Thus, the heat
exchanger 16 acts as a ccndenser for the product water to
separate the water from hydrocarbons. The separator 22 uses the
controlled partial expansion to discharge the hydrocarbon gases
through pipe 25 and to discharge the purified distillate (water)
through Pipe 24 to the outlet 28 (column 3, line 56-
column 4, line 11). Thus, the separation of waste gases occurs
in degasser 9 and separator 22 (with the help of compressor 19) ,
not the evaporator 40. Moreover, the evaporator 40 XS not a
falling film evaporator and does not function as one.

As the applicants understand the Examiner's
application of Blanghe^i, the Examiner is relying on the
embodiment of FIGURE 2, with the modification that a falling
tube h~t -xchanger is substituted for the packed column 23 of

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12103 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

L^^6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNIC^^

06/12/2003 14:15 FAX 216 241 °— — ® 014

- 11 -

heat exchanger 22. Note that Blanghetti' s heat exchanger is
being used in a condanger mode in which the fluid outside the
tubes is heated by the fluid inside the tubes and liquid water
is discharged as the output product at the lower end of the
tubes. This is as opposed to functioning as an evaporator in
which the fluid inside the tubes is heated by the fluid outside
the tubes and vapor is the output product at the lower end of
the tubes. Even with the Examiner's modification and
substitution, Blanghetti uses a different dissolved gas
extraction technique to generate a product liquid. The primary
feed water component which is introduced at 2 is heated by a
heat exchanger 2 9 and fed through an outer passage 22 of a
falling water heat exchanger to a spray no**le 24. Waste steam
from the condenser 19 (which might actually be an evaporator)
is fed through steam inlet 15 into chamber 14 from which the
steam rises through the packed column 23 or, with the Examiner' s
modification, up through the vertical tubes of a falling water
heat exchanger. In this manner, the sprayed water runs down the
walls of the falling water heat exchanger (which is not used as
an evaporator) as the steam passes up the center of the tubes
(and partially condenses) . As the steam condenses, it transfers
heat to the water flowing through 22 to the spray 24. The gases
removed by the spraying, the gases extracted by the steam, and
the steam mix in the space above the heat exchanger and all exit
through tube 26 to a separator 3 which condenses the water 3 and
passes the other gases through outlet 27. Thus, the contaminant
gases are moved from the system by a condensation operation in
separator 3.

Blanghetti uses two stages of deaeration. First, it
uses flash de-aeration as the water is sprayed by nozzles 24
(column 3, lines 16-20). In the second stage, air remaining in
the water flowing down the tubes is removed by kinetics,
i.e., stripped out by and dissolved in the rising steam. The
water which has fallen or travelled the length off the falling
tube evaporator along with condensed steam forms th« product

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12/03 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

L ^^6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNIC^^

06/12/2003 14: IS FAX 216 241

- 12 -

wster is. The steam and the removed gases both travel together
out tube 26 to a condenser/separator 3.

Thus, Blanghetti does not disclose or fairly suggest
using a falling water evaporator to generate a primary product
vapor, but rather uses'; a falling water heat exchanger as a
condenser to generate primary product liquid. Blanghetti' s
falling water heat exchanger does not produce product vapor.
Moreover, the steam which is rising in columns draws gases out
of the product water and the gases and the steam are all
intermixed and removed together at 26 to be separated further
downstream at the separator 3.

In the Office Action, the Examiner states that
Hohmann and Ryham are ndt applied for "removing dissolved gases
from the liquid", because all of the claims against which the
Examiner cites these references require such separation, and
because no other references were cited in combination with these
two references against the claims, it is submitted that these
references need not be i discussed further. It appears agreed
that these two references do not remove dissolved gases from the
liquid- If any further discussion of these references is
needed, the applicants refer the Examiner to Amendment B.

The Cl-^« n-i »t±ncruiah P»f.«ntablv
Over the References of Record

Claim 1 calls for separating water soluble
atmospheric gases frod the sprayed feed water. El-Allawy
removes volatile gases : in separator 9 upstream of the spray
nozzles. The liquid at the spray nozzles should be already
fully degassed so that iseparation would not take place at the

nozzles. ;

Claim 1 further calls for discharging the separated

atmospheric gases separately from the water vapor. El-Allawy

discharges both non-condensible hydrocarbon gases and water

vapor together as a mikure from the evaporator 14, 40. The

separation of these two! gases takes place downstream after the

compressor 19, by a controlled partial expansion in which the

water vapor is condensed and the hydrocarbon vapors are not.

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12103 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

06/12/2003 14:15 FAX 218 24lH&6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNICtf^ 0016

- 13 -

Accordingly, claim 1 distinguishes patentably and unobviously
over El-Allawy,

Although Blanghetti may separate dissolved gases
adjacent the spray nozzles 14, such 3pray nozzles are intermixed
with the steam rising through the falling water heat exchanger
end discharges the mixture of dissolved gases and steam through
outlet tube 26. Separation of the dissolved gases from the
a team takes place by condensing the steam at separator 3.

Moreover, claim 1 calls for a method which discharges
water vapor with reduced atmospheric gas contamination through
lower ends of a falling film evaporator; whereas, Blanghetti
discharges liquid water from lower ends of a falling water heat
exchanger .

Because both El-Allawy and Blanghetti generate a
different output product, liquid water rather than water vapor,
and separate water soluble gases in a different way, it is
submitted that claim 1 distinguishes patentably and unobviously
over the references of record.

Claim 2 calls for an arrangement of vertical
evaporator channels which convert water passing therethrough
into vapor. El-Allawy condenses water vapor flowing through
heat exchanger 16 to separate hydrocarbons from water by
controlled partial expansion. Blanghetti passes water vapor
through the tubes of the falling tube heat exchanger of the
FIGURE 2 modification, but does not convert the water into water
vapor. Rather, the cool liquid outside of the tubes on its way
to the spray nozzles keeps the water in the tubes cool and
absorbs heat from the extraction steam which is passing up the
tubes. Rather than evaporating the feed water, the cooler
liquid on the outside of the tubes which is heated by the steam
probably causes partial condensation of the steam, i*e., the
falling water heat exchanger of Blanghetti is functioning not
as an evaporator, but as a condenser.

Claim 2 further calls for the separated gas to be
removed from a separated gas outlet prior to the spray droplets
entering the upper end of the evaporator channel arrangement
reducing dissolved gas contamination in the vapor. El-Allawy

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12103 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

L^^6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINN I

06/12/2003 14:16 FAX 216 241 ^6 ™ «™™ ™=an m.n*.c:h— ^017

14 -

does not reduce dissolved gas contamination of a vapor. Rather,
the only gas or vapor produced by El-Allawy is the separated
gas. The only vapor in Blanghetti is intermixed with the
separated gas and discharged together through outlet 26 as an
intermediate step of the separation product- Thus, the
separated gases and the steam are not separated prior to
entering the falling water evaporator tubes, but are intermixed
at this location. It might be noted that Blanghetti separates
the separated gases from the steam in condenser 3 by
condensation to produce liquid water and separated gases.

Accordingly, it is submitted that claim 2 and
claims 3-5 dependent therefrom distinguish patentably and
unobviously over the references of record-
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and also calls for
separation of dissolved gases from feed water. Because the
Examiner concedes that neither Hohmann nor Ryham which are
applied against claim 3 teach the separation of gases from feed
water, it is submitted that claim 3 and claim 5 dependent
therefrom distinguish patentably and unobviously over the

references of record-
Claim 6 calls for separating atmospheric gases from
water. Because the Examiner has conceded in the last Office
Action that neither of the applied references, Hohmann or Ryham
disclose such separation, it is submitted that claim 6 and
claim 7 dependent therefrom distinguish patentably and
unobviously over Hohmann and Ryham.

Further, claim 6 calls for evaporating the water from
which the atmospheric gases have been removed in the spraying
operation in the vertical evaporation channels. Ei-Allawy
condenses rather than vaporizes water in heat exchanger tube 16.
Blanghetti does not evaporate the water sprayed into the
vertical evaporation channels, but rather cools that water and
partially condenses an extracting steam which is rising in the
columns to intermix and dissolve separated gases with the rising
water vapor. Xn this manner, water vapor with an increased
atmospheric gas contamination is generated and discharged at 26.

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12103 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

66 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNICI^

06/12/2003 14:16 FAX 216 241 W86 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNICfl^ ©018

15

Accordingly, it is submitted that claim 6 and claim 7
dependent therefrom distinguish patentably over the references
of record.

Claim 8 calls for a falling film evaporator. The
heat exchanger of El-Allawy is not a falling film evaporator.
The falling film heat exchanger of Blanghetti is not an
evaporator, but rather a condenser.

Claim 8 calls for product water to enter upper ends
of the channels and vaporized product vapor to exit the lower
ends of the channels. In El-Allawy, to the exact opposite,
water vapor enters the upper end of heat exchanger tube 16 and
condensed water exits the lower end. In Blanghetti, product
water enters the upper end of the channels and product water
exist the lower end. Extraction $team enters rather than exits
the lower end and exits the upper end.

Accordingly, it is submitted that claim 8 and
claims 9-10 dependent therefrom distinguish patentably and
unobviously over the references of record.

Claims 9-10 stand rejected only as being obvious over
either one of Hohmann or Ryham. Because the Office Action of
April 11, 2003 concedes that neither shows removing dissolved
gases from the liquid, it is submitted that the requirement of
parent claim 8 for atmospheric gases to be separated from water
droplets is not met by the references. Accordingly, it is
submitted that claims 9-10 distinguish patentably and
unobviously over the references of record.

Claim 11 calls for spraying feed water to
simultaneously separate nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, and
other dissolved water soluble atmospheric gases from feed water
and distributing the feed water over upper ends of vertical
evaporation tubes. El-Allawy calls for removing hydrocarbons
rather than atmospheric gases, for removing the volatile
hydrocarbons before the water is sprayed, and for distributing
the sprayed feed water over the exterior of neither an upper nor
lower end of heat exchanger tubes 16.

Claim 11 calls for passing the feed water from which
soluble gases have been separated through the vertical

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12103 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

nfi/12/2003 14:J« FAX 216 241

F&6 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNIC^ ® 019

16 -

evaporation channels and converting at least a portion of the
feed water to ,te-. To the contrary, El-Allawy passes water
vaoor into heat exchanger tub* 16 and condenses it. Likewise
Blanghetti does not evaporate the feed water of the vertical
evaporation channel, - Rather, steam from another source passes
up through the channels to extract .oluble gases. Because a
cooler fluid surrounds the vertical channels, the feed water is
maintained Uquid and the surrounding water extracts heat fro.
the steam by condensation.

Further, claim 11 calls for discharging the steam
separate fro* the separated atmospheric gases. By contrast,
El-Allawy discharges liquid water rather than steam. Blanghetti
uS es the steam to strip dissolved gases from the feed water to
form a material-kinetic extraction of the atmospheric gases from
the feed water into the steam. Thus, intermixing the steam and
the atmospheric gases is a critical part of the Blanghetti
separation process. Accordingly, it is submitted that clai. 11
distinguishes patentably and unobviously over the references of
record.

Claim 12 calls for a plurality of heated vertical
evaporation tubes which receive liquid feed water at upper ends
and discharged steam at a lower end. Just the opposite, heat
exchanger tube 16 of El-Allawy receives water vapor at its upper
end and discharges liquid water at its lower end. Also just the
opposite, Blanghetti receives steam at the lower end of the
tubes and discharges steam at the upper end of the tubes -tale
concurrently introducing liquid feed water at upper ends and
discharging liquid water at the lower ends .

Claim 12 calls for a means for removing the steam
separate from the liberated water soluble atmospheric gases.
The steam or water vapor generated in the evaporator 14, 40 of
E-Al^awy is discharged intermixed with the contaminant
hydrocarbons, not separately. The only steam in Blanghetti
exits the upper ends of the vertical heat exchanger tubes and
is purposely intermixed with the water soluble atmospheric gases

„,,„ oor o T he output of the condenser 3
to carry them to a condenser J. ine uu^

is not steam, but liquid water and separated gases.

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12103 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]

06/12/2003 14:17 FAX 216 241

.^^66 FAY SHARPE FAGAN MINNld^

]020

- 17 -

Accordingly, it is submitted that claim 12
distinguishes patentably and unobviously over the references of
record.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, in the present application, spraying
the feed water over the inlet end of a falling tube evaporator
simultaneously separates dissolved gases and distributes the
feed water evenly over the input tube ends of the falling water
evaporator tubes in which the falling water film is heated and
vaporized to produce an output vapor with a lower dissolved gas
concentration than the feed water. By contrast, El-Allawy uses
the evaporator 14 to generate a mixture of water vapor and
non-condensible hydrocarbon vapors which are separated
downstream at 22 using controlled partial expansion. Volatile
hydrocarbons were removed upstream of the evaporator at 9.
Blanghetti talks about using a packed column or falling film
heat exchanger, but does not use either the packed column or the
falling film heat exchanger 11 as an evaporator. In a typical
falling film evaporator (note Ryham, Hohmann, or
McCabe & Smith) , water is fed into the falling tubes 12 and is
heated by steam that surrounds the tubes to evaporate the
falling water, producing steam or water vapor at the lower end
of the tubes. Just the opposite, Blanghetti passes steam up the
center of the tubes to: (1) extract gases from water flowing
down the inside of the tubes, and (2) to preheat the feed water
passing through the region 22 around the tubes. The heat flow
is in the opposite direction in Blanghetti than it would be in
an evaporator .

The applicants look forward to the opportunity to
discuss these differences with the Examiner in an interview and
arrive at appropriate language for the claims such that they
distinguish clearly over the cited references.

Received from < 216 241 1666 > at 6/12/03 2:12:53 PM [Eastern Daylight Time]